Maui X-Stream at it Again?

Goyuix writes "In their latest commercial venture, Maui X-Stream, the now infamous company behind Cherry OS, has recently launched a suite of tools that once again takes advantage of GPL'd code to get their dirty work done... This time it is a set of video encoding, streaming and display tools. A choice quote from SourceForge: 'There are boundled dshow filters, string, toolbars, dialogs, command line switches, etc..., which can be verified easily by just running the applications and taking a look, or a bit harder by analysing the memory dump'. Is the situation getting worse or is community just getting better at finding the violators?"

Comments

Not Better, Just Smarter

[gbulmash]

Is the situation getting worse or is community just getting better at finding the violators?

I don't think it's the community getting better, at least not in this case. If you have a crook who is known to steal televisions and then put them in his front yard, disguised as birdbaths, you're going to get suspicious every time a new birdbath appears in his yard.

Maui X-Stream is that crook and this video project is their latest birdbath.

- Greg

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

On the smart side, he's gotten >100,000 people to look at his birdbath multiple times, where there hasn't been a single story on Slackware / debian / enlightenment / Nethack / etc on the Slashdot front page in weeks.

Possible he's running Google ads somewhere nearby?

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Wiser87]

I thought the violations in their video products had been known for a while? IIRC, there was a discussion about it in the PearPC forums. Interestingly enough, one of the people who looked into it said that if it weren't for the fact that it was in violation of the GPL, their products would actually be pretty good.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[kz45]

I don't think it's the community getting better, at least not in this case. If you have a crook who is known to steal televisions and then put them in his front yard, disguised as birdbaths, you're going to get suspicious every time a new birdbath appears in his yard.

well, GPL violations are not equal to stealing. The original sourcecode is still there. Maybe a copyright violation of some kind, so your analogy doesn't hold.

I don't understand why the community has a problem with this in the first place. The original source code is still under the GNU license.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[gbulmash]

Forget about Maui X-Stream, I want to hear more about this TV stealing birdbath maker!

His name is Eddie and I believe he'll be appearing in the Christmas episode of "Reno 911" ;-)

- Greg

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[mrdaveb]

I don't understand why the community has a problem with this in the first place. The original source code is still under the GNU license.

People who release code under the GPL are perfectly entitled to 'have a problem' with people breaching their software licence of choice.
Anyone who thinks it's OK for others to take their programs, close the source and release modified versions shouldn't be using the GPL - try the BSD licence instead.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Directrix1]

Open source implementations which are compatible with formats used by proprietary vendors are not proprietary software. Additionally, we would be nowhere without reverse engineering and the open sharing of knowledge. And that "we" includes proprietary software companies like Microsoft.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[sjames]

I don't understand why the community has a problem with this in the first place. The original source code is still under the GNU license.

The same reason plagerism is one of the more serious offenses you can commit in the acedemic world for a start.

There's also the extra offensive nature that having been offered a very generous license for your hard work, these jackasses STILL choose to misapropriate it.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[masukomi]

BSD doesn't allow you to close the source, just to distrubute it with closed source as long as the BSD code still has source available.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[fireman sam]

Actually downloading music is different to what Maui X-Stream is doing.

The equivilant would be if I downloaded the latest Britney Spears album, printed new covers and labels and then attempted to sell it as my own works.

Nobody who downloads songs on P2P is claiming they now own the copyright to the piece of music and are attempting to sell it as their own work.

Maui X-Stream have downloaded PearPC, printed new covers and labels and were attempting to sell it as their own work. Exactly what they are doing now.

Getting worse?

[Drakonian]

It's hard to say it's getting worse since it's only one company that keeps blatantly offending.

Re:Getting worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hardly just one company. The linux kernel, busybox and iptables seem to be popular among manufacturers of SOHO network devices. Sadly the GPL is not as popular.

The various open source media player programs also attract gadget developers who don't care enough about licensing.

Last but not least there is a trend to attempt legal and technical trickery to circumvent the GPL requirements. Companies which are completely aware of the license requirements are nevertheless building business models around open source and either try to make the GPL benefits too expensive for interested people or try to delay source releases indefinitely by continuously making small source management "mistakes".

Worse

[breakbeatninja]

I think the situation is definitely getting worse AND the open source community is becoming more adament about exposing this sort of behavior. The problem is that all open source licensing relies on honesty and many commercial vendors don't know the meaning of it, so when the two sides clash, open source may get the short end of the stick.

Re:Worse

[arose]

You mean GNU Brute International Elite Squad?

I may be a bit late to the party here -

[thewldisntenuff]

But is the problem that they aren't properly stating who the source code belongs to? I mean, I thought code-copy was okay in the GPL so long as you noted the GPL warning and who the code came from.....For example, I can repackage an OS and sell it with my own support, etc (a la CentOS -> RedHat), so long as I make such statments, right?

I really don't know - so it'd help if someone would explain it instead of modding me (-1, stupid)

Thanks

-thewldisntenuff

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[TelJanin]

You also have to give the source code to anybody that you've given the binary to, if they ask. However, you are not obligated to give the source to everybody.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[TelJanin]

You are allowed to sell the software. You are not allowed to keep the source to yourself. Somebody could re-sell GIMP for $200, and as long as they gave the source code to their customers it would be legal.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[gbulmash]

No, if you are using GPL'd code and selling it for profit, it is against the GPL.

Dang, someone better tell RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc., etc., on and on and on!!!!!

I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it. AFAIK, I just can't relabel it as FrepSearchIncredible, withhold the source code, and pretend it's my own unique product.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[PocketPick]

I am intrigued by this FrepSeachIncredible. How much are you looking for again?

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[slamb]

I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them.

But of course you can't find someone willing to pay. The GPL permits you to sell software, but it also permits any of your customers to undercut you by selling it for a lower price or just giving it away. So if you write some GPLed software, you can probably sell it once. If someone else wrote it, you probably can't sell it at all.

So there are two realistic ways to make money off GPLed software:

• Do custom development for a fee. Like a consulting business that develops niche software that probably only one company would ever use. They have more options in case you become unreasonable or go bankrupt, so presumably they'd be willing to pay more than for a proprietary solution.
• Sell an aggregation (like Red Hat Enterprise Linux), documentation, or support. This is what those companies you mentioned - RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc. - do.

These are valid ways to make a living, but they'll never be as lucrative as Microsoft's business model. Namely, to write the software once, sell it over and over, and sell the extras separately.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[DJCacophony]

A great book to read on this subject is "Open Source - The Unofficial White Papers". It has some great papers about building businesses off open source. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764 546600/qid=1115078180/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/002-2477466-1646408?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[slamb]

> > I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it.

> Um, would you care to state where in the license this is explicitly allowed? Because I can cite where it's explicitly prohibited.

No, you can't. The GPL is explicitly designed to allow you to do this, as stated in the preamble:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

I suspect you're thinking of this paragraph:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

But you're not required to give the source to anyone who doesn't have the binary, and you're not required to give the binary away.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[dragonman97]

He can sell it for a billion dollars each...provided he makes the source code available on request (and this presumes that customers are notified of the presence of GPL code, and their rights to request the source). The GPL does not prohibit the binary distribution of a piece of GPLed software - but the source must be available upon request (and even to recoup the cost of duplication/mailing, if applicable).

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[gbulmash]

I am intrigued by this FrepSeachIncredible. How much are you looking for again?

[In his best Dr. Evil voice] "One biilllion dollars! Muahaha!"

- Greg

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[X0563511]

You can charge as much as you want. It's the SOURCE CODE that you cannot charge for (other than reasonable transfer fee. like for the CDR it's on)

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Omnifarious]

There are two basic ideas in the GPL.

The first is that you cannot prevent people from sharing. So, if you sell someone a GPL program, you can't prevent them from handing a copy to a friend under the GPL.

The second is that you must allow people to make their own modified versions of the software. In order for this to work, they have to have the source code to the software. So, you must provide the source code if asked, and you are not allowed to charge extra for source code.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[yamla]

That's not true at all:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

"any third party".

Well...

[Effugas]

To be clear -- using dshow filters, piped executables, and so on is fine by GPL; you're just not allowed to link the code into your application. It looks like they modified the GUI tools, though, without releasing source. That's not allowed.

try out the live chat!

[croddy]

Chat Information Please wait for a site operator to respond.
Chat Information You are now chatting with 'Gene'
Gene: Hello
you: where are you distributing the vx30 source code pursuant to the conditions of the GPL
you: hello?
you: a simple URL is all that is required.
Gene: If you knew what you were talking I would talk to you but...
Chat Information Chat session has been terminated by the site operator.

Re:try out the live chat!

[_Sharp'r_]

You know, for some websites, live chat is the most expensive part of ths site... all those call center reps to pay... not that you could slashdot a call center and run up a huge bill, could you ...?

Re:try out the live chat!

[AndroidCat]

I tried and got someone called Liza.

> Hello, I am Liza.
* Where are you distributing the vx30 source code pursuant to the conditions of the GPL?
> Would you prefer if I were not distributing the vx30 source code pursuant to the conditions of the GPL?
* A simple URL is all that is required.
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* What?
> Does that question interest you?
* What are you wearin ..

She was no help at all.

A bit of both, really...

[mph_az]

as 'free' software pops up on the radar of increasingly unscrupulous people, more violations are taking place. At the same time, as the community gains more experience with people unfairly taking advantage of GNU software, they are becoming more vigilant.

Not really an interesting question, to me the interesting question is...what the hell made them think they wouldn't get caught again?!?!

Hopefully not a growing trend

[coupland]

My question is, what's to stop this sort of behaviour? Most free software projects operate under a tight budget as it is, how many have the funds to sue anyone who misappropriates their GPLed code? If every victim has to solicit donations to fund a lawsuit then what's to be done? Sure the FSF can probably help, but I doubt they'd have the resources to defend the GPL on multiple fronts if violators launched a wholesale attack.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Audacious]

Actually, now that the GPL has been shown to be valid in court, it should be getting easier to have a lawyer represent you in court. Donations are then not needed because all you have to do is to make sure your lawyer gets paid when the money is collected from the people who have stolen/misappropriated/converted your GPL'd code into their applications.

This is NOT to say that you can just go down to your local street corner and have lawyers rush towards you with open arms, gushing with enthusiasm about wanting to represent you in court. But any lawyer who deals with copyrights, patents, and such should have a very good grasp on how to go about dealing with people who misappropriate computer code. In many cases, all it really takes is for a lawyer to write a halfway decent letter to the offender for them to back off. Thus, for less than $300.00 you can probably find a lawyer willing to write the letter to the company.

This is also not to say that the person to whom the GPL'd code belonged could not write a letter by just getting one of those Business Lawyer CDs and using the template letter to send a cease and desist letter.

But I would use a lawyer. Mainly because it gives more force to what you are saying and/or doing.

(And yes, IANAL! Not all of the time mind you - sometimes I'm just a normal person - but right now IANAL!) ;-)

Kill em.

[jericho4.0]

And if I see the "innocent until proven guilty" argument, I'll flip. This guy is a con artist, and the OS comunity needs to deal with it.

Replace "kill" with "sue" if you live in such a legal enviroment.

Re:boundled?

[arbitraryaardvark]

Google returns 1000+ hits for boundled. Typo or neologism?

Have you seen the price???

[stox]

$799.00, holy cow, whatta deal!!

BTW, what happened to 1.0?

Re:Have you seen the price???

[Doyle]

Does that price include a $699.00 SCO Linux licence? I want to make sure I'm legal with all this...

Time for a court injunction?

[davidwr]

Is it time to get a court injunction?

Perhaps the time is right for a "GPL Clearninghouse" whereby authors can "contract" limited enforcement responsibilities to the clearinghouse. If PearPC and the items currently in question were both enforced by this clearinghouse, the clearinghouse would find it a lot easier to enjoin these people from ever violating the GPL again with respect to ANY code under its management.

Judge, to the officers of Maui X-Streme:
"You are hereby ordered to comply with the licensing restrictions of any and all code which now, or in the future, is owned or managed by The Clearinghouse, provided that The Clearinghouse informs you or the general public that it is managing the code in question. Failure to do so will be contempt of court, punishable by jail time. This order will be reviewed every 24 months. Do you understand?"

Acquisition

[slamb]

I think it's getting worse. They're by no means the only violators; just the most flagrant.

I recently discovered that Acquisition (a popular Mac OS X gnutella client) is using GPLed Limewire code. It's not anywhere on the main Acquisition website, acquisitionx.com. The website implies the whole thing is written by David Watanabe. It's shareware with nag screens. Most users will never know there's Limewire code used. The most obvious place it's mentioned is the fine print of the "About" box.

There is some source available, at AcquisitionX.org. (There are no links from the other site. Found it through some googling.) This is the "core" of Acquisition, a modified version of LimeWire's core code. But the actual UI code is not released. The developer claims this is "full and complete compliance with the LimeWire GPL", but it's not. The key characteristic of the GPL is that you have to release applications that use GPLed libraries under the GPL themselves. He's following the terms of the LGPL instead. If they'd meant to release it under that license, they would have! He's profiting from other people's work without following their license or giving them proper credit.

(Sorry for making people click through. I deliberately have no links to either Acquisition site because I don't want to increase his PageRank.)

Re:Acquisition

[Steamhead]

The net core of Acquisition is piped rather then linked, thus it is in complete compliance with the GPL.

Re:Acquisition

[don.g]

It means that the app *may* *technically* be in compliance with the GPL (but they're scum for doing it like that). Essentially, they will have an executable with the GPL code, and then an executable with their code (and no GPLed stuff), and some way of communicating between the two. This means that they can get away with releasing only the source for the executable with the GPLed code in it, but it's not terribly useful by itself. The Mac OS X IM client Proetus does this, using GAIM's networking code.

Is it GPL compliant? Maybe; the MySQL guys seem to think that talking to their database over the network amounts to "linking", where as most people traditionally have taken this to mean "merging their code with mine in the same executable".

Is it scummy behaviour that should be discouraged? Absolutely.

Re:Acquisition

[Tim C]

The MySQL guys are wrong. Imagine Apache was GPLed rather than Apache licenced - following th MySQL guys' reasoning, all web browsers that access an Apache-hosted site would have to be GPLed.

paying for Firefox!

[Arctic Dragon]

Are you interested in purchasing Mozilla Firefox Arctic Dragon Edition? It's yours for only 4 payments of $39.99 and a $50 monthly Update Subscription fee. If you want the source code, it will only cost you an additional $150!! Wow!
This offer ends soon! Call now! Not available in stores.
Call 1-800-GPL-FUCK

DISCLAIMER: If you're a Mozilla developer and you see any similarities between your code and mine, it's only a coincidence.

Re:History repeating, in a way

[Holi]

Well considering Spyglass Mosaic was a commercial browser and was not GPL'ed. It was an enhanced version of NCSA Mosaic which was also not GPL. MS licensed Mosaic from Spyglass in 1995 in a lucrative deal for Spyglass where they would receive a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's revenues for the software. We all know what happened next. All in all Spyglass got screwed now worms rule that thar intrweb thing.

So basically you have no right to the IE source code(not sure why you'd want it).

Call Them Up!

[Jukashi]

Seriously here their number: 1-808-661-5699

I just gave the guy a piece of my mind, if we all do it...well they'll just change the number - but its fun! lets hear some recordings!

Re:Or the phone number...

[Anonymous Coward]

Toll free is better (costs them money): 1 (866) 661-5699

It's time for revenge!

[Spy der Mann]

Let's put a final to this. We MUST make a precedent. And we have to make a model punishment.

Yes, we have to invoke... Katana Tux! (grrrrr)

I'd say we're getting smarter

[Spy der Mann]

Specially with a dedicated website for posting these frauds.

i called maui x stream

[Ravenrage]

and when i asked about when they are going to release the code i was told quote "if those lazy bitches on slashdot bothered to check the evidence they would know it contains no gpl code" and when i asked about the fact that the claim can be verified i was told "fuck you" and then they hung up

Re:i called maui x stream

[northcat]

That's a pretty outrageous claim you're making. How can we know it's true?

(Yeah yeah, I know, I'm captain obvious)

Ratio of "Stupid" Customers to Informed Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument only holds water if you're assuming that potential cusomers are informed and discerning.

If FrepSeachIncredible can pull off the same trick as Sunkist Oranges (where consumers are paying a hefty premium for a little purple stamp) it could work brilliantly.

Personally, I am hoping to get in on the ground floor of FrepSeachIncredible. Maybe we could even get SCO to sue us as part of the marketing blitz.

Their Con Is Working?

[wan-fu]

Assuming that this really is a GPL violation, then I'm surprised they've already got some big names to fall for the con. On their own website, they make mention that VX30 was used by HFPA. I was incredulous of course and decided to do some fact checking. Well, turns out, it's true! The video gallery over at the Golden Globe awards has an icon for VX30 which links back to MXS.

Here's what I think would be the most hilarious thing of all:

1. the code turns out to be a GPL violation.
2. HFPA gets mad, makes a ruckus - especially to the movie industry
3. movie industry sues MXS
4. ???
5. Slashdotters celebrate and rejoice over the movie industry suing someone

Wouldn't that be something?

Re:Or the phone number...

[techfury90]

I decided to have a little bit of fun using myiprelay on aim calling them up (I know I forgot the toll free number and used the 808 one, sorry):

My IP Relay: . Please hold for the next available operator. PLS ENTER THE NBR U WANT TO DIAL GA
techfury90 : 8086615699 GA
My IP Relay: IP RELAY RO 9560F DIALING 808 661 5699 PLS HD
My IP Relay: RING 1 (F) GOOD AFTERNOON
My IP Relay: (EXPLAINING RELAY) GA
8:30 PM
techfury90 : hello i would like to know where the GPL source code to your VX30 software and cherryos is located ga
techfury90 : as far as i know, you aren't distributing it, which is a GPL violation.
techfury90 : ga
My IP Relay: IS THIS A RXX MARKETING
My IP Relay: HELLO HELLO HELLO (HUNG UP ANOTHER CALL QQ) GA

rxx marketing? wtfbomb.

Re:How Is This Particular Instance

[LnxAddct]

Err Red Hat has always provided full source to everything and has never tried to hide the fact that it uses GPL code. In fact it thrives on it, Red Hat produces more open code then any other entity. This includes gnome.org, the kernel, apache, gcj, and most other major open source projects are maintained mostly on Red Hat's payroll. Linus never seemed to have an issue with anything they did, he did afterall take something 10 million dollars worth of stock that they gave him for free just for his contributions. Some major open source folks work at Red Hat, everything from top kernel maintainers, to the guy who wrote the first gcc c++ compiler. People very rarely appreciate what Red Hat has done for the community.
Regards,
Steve

Re:History repeating, in a way

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no it wasn't.

They took the BSD networking stack for Windows '95 (and NT?) but then there was a bug found in the BSD networking stack and Windows wasn't susceptible, so it'd diverged enough by then (which was around 98/99 or something).

They sold GPL Unix toolkit software for a while, but now they give it away.

Any other examples of BSD/GPL licenced software in Microsoft?

Maui X-Stream, funded by

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Microsoft, MPAA, and RIAA.

You're reading the GPL out of context

[Anonymous Coward]

so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court.

You are wrong. The section of the GPL that you are referring to is discussing the source code that you must provide. While you are required to give the source code to all requesters if you distribute the binary at all, you are allowed to charge a nominal fee to cover your costs of the source distribution (i.e. cost of media and mailing, though a few nasty folks have taken to violating this chunk of the GPL, trying to charge $60 or so for source to the software involved).

You can charge *whatever you want* for the binary. You can charge a million dollars for the binary, if you want -- but if you distribute that binary at all (including selling it), you *must* also provide GPLed, redistributable source with it (actually, there are some minor variants, like allowing giving a reference a download to the source in some cases, or an offer to provide the source for a nominal fee, but this pretty well sums it up). You must allow the party requesting the source to redistribute it under the GPL.

So you can certainly sell GPLed software. Red Hat does it every day. What Red Hat cannot do is prevent people from replicating their distribution. (Red Hat actually is extremely nice about this, since they could legally be assholes like SuSE and make their installers non-GPL -- instead, they freely provide downloadable ISOs of their distribution. In return, they get more community respect than SuSE does.)

Maui are small-time compared to these

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL violators are all over the place.

Check out http://www.clicksandlinks.com/

This "software developer" charges $1000's for OpenCMS GPL software licences, claiming that it develops it itself.

Their "Roundabout" product is just OpenCMS with the GPL licence and source removed. They are scamming public money and no-one is challenging their violation.

It's Free Software, not Open Source

[CarpetShark]

The GPL is about Free Software, not open source. I don't mean to whine pointlessly, but it's an important distinction. Open Source folk wouldn't like it if you called their work "shareware", so please try to use the correct terminology.